In a few weeks, California voters will decide whether to accept or reject the expansion of availability of drugs which can further impair drivers’ ability to function safely on our streets. Proposition 64 is a terrible idea.

The July 22 headline article reporting the sentencing of Rodolfo Contreras to prison for 20 years to life for killing a man while under the influence of marijuana emphasizes the point. Contreras was traveling about 80 miles per hour when he ran a red light, then lost control, crossed over to the oncoming lanes and ran head on into the victim’s vehicle, killing him on contact. When confronted by good samaritans at the scene, that he had just killed someone, Contreras responded, “I want my weed.” The collision scene covered 400 yards and was described at trial as looking like an airplane crash site. This crash happened just before noon. Contreras’ blood test revealed just 16 nanograms of THC, the component in marijuana that impairs driving. A nanogram is just one billionth of a gram.

Earlier this month, our Board of Supervisors approved receipt of a $1 million grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety to cover one year of specialized prosecution of current driving under the influence of drug cases. It can only get worse with increased availability of this performance impairing drug. Last year, there were over 600 DUID cases in Orange County. Do we really want to multiply that number?

Proponents of Prop. 64 argue that financial benefits from taxing sales could be significant and that legalization will eliminate the current black market in sales. In criminal justice reform, financial benefits aren’t the proper basis for assessing the merits of the measure. We have been following the Colorado experiment, where proponents of their legalization law also claimed black market sales would be eliminated. It just hasn’t happened. There still is a significant black market in Colorado and there’s no reason to expect California’s entrenched underground market also wouldn’t persist.

Prop. 64 is an assault on our public safety efforts and a guarantee of more DUID deaths in California. Prop. 64 can only lead to increased availability of marijuana to our children. We are convinced that we don’t need one more thing to dumb down our young people and impact their motivation to do well in life.

Prop. 64 is bad for our streets, bad for our kids and will never produce the benefits the authors claim.

By all means, don’t let California go to pot. Please vote no on Prop. 64.

— Todd Spitzer, Orange, Third District Supervisor and Sandra Hutchens, Santa Ana, Sheriff of Orange County

Lanzillo was just tip of iceberg

Re: “Private detective pleads guilty in scheme to set up Costa Mesa city leaders” [News, Sept. 28]: Although it seems a positive step, by pleading guilty, Christopher Lanzillo may have prevented us from knowing the real truth about the harassment of Mr. Righeimer. No need for a lengthy trial with lots of witnesses. Lanzillo admits he did it. But a sworn officer was dispatched to an elected official’s home to administer a field sobriety test. The “D” in DUI stands for “driving.” Mr. Righeimer was in his home, not driving. Whatever the test showed, it could not have been evidence of DUI, as Mr. Lanzillo was trying to imply in his false report. That test should never have been carried out.

We need to know who issued the order to send an officer to his home. This was pure and simple political harassment. We can be sure the officer knew he had no right to administer the test, but was following orders. But from whom? We need to know.

— M. J. Knudsen, Trabuco Canyon

Loretta Sanchez missing in action

Re: “Congress overrides Obama’s veto of bill to allow 9/11 lawsuits” [News, Sept. 29]: Your article shows a box called “How our lawmakers voted.” I see that Rep. Loretta Sanchez did not vote. What is this about? How can a representative not vote? This needs some explaining!

— Stanley Miller, Mission Viejo

We need four more years

Nothing new in the debates. I have been voting since 1948 and have never been offered a worse choice. I must vote for Hillary, the least unqualified of two utterly unqualified candidates.

It is indeed unfortunate that we are saddled with the 22nd Amendment. Mr. Obama is not perfect but he is far better qualified than either of the candidates that I saw last night.

— Sidney Hatchl, Santa Ana

Hillary had edge, vote still goes to Trump

The debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had no effect on my decision to vote for Trump. I do realize that Hillary is a seasoned politician with better oratory skills. However, this election is about policy preference, not debating skills. While I am not in full agreement with either candidate on all of their policies, I have much more in common with Trump’s ideas. In addition, I am fully aware of Hillary’s past corruption and don’t believe she has redeemed herself. I also believe that under a Hillary administration, the corruption would continue. As far as winning the debate, Hillary had a slight edge on expressing her views without repeating herself over Trump, though this is not a determining factor for me.

— Bob Miller, Anaheim

Hillary running the same old campaign

Millions witnessed two candidates for president. Clinton has been practicing for weeks what she was told to say during the debate. She was busy practicing and being coached while Trump was visiting the citizens of this country. She is following the same old guidelines from past Democrats. Promise them anything to get the votes and then forget the promises. Research proves that cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, which had Democratic leaders for years, are in sad shape. Hopefully, the citizens of this country will wake up and filter her lies from reality.

— Chuck Trout, Huntington Beach

We, the American people, are the losers

Regarding your editorial question, “Did the debate change minds?” [Opinion, Sept. 27]: I would suspect it did not change any minds; I know it didn’t change mine. Neither candidate was a winner or loser; only the American people were the losers since Hillary kept to her well-known script with nothing new and Trump, for whatever reason, did not choose to really attack Hillary over her Benghazi fiasco and how she and Obama put the whole Middle East into turmoil, nor about all the lies she told about her emails, lies that were exposed by the FBI. On the good side was the informative Register editorial, “Debate answers few of nation’s big questions” [Opinion, Sept. 27].

— Dave Connell, Laguna Beach

Debate was a failure

People that went into the debate thinking they would vote for Trump came away thinking they will vote for Trump. People who went in thinking the same about Hillary came away still voting for her. It came through vaguely, but not firmly, that Trump is in favor of a capitalistic economic system and she is a socialist. That issue should have been pressed. It was not. Overall, the “debate” was a failure and Clinton came away with the best “performance.”

— Vern Caumiant, Laguna Woods

Nothing of substance came out of the debate

In many ways the debate was predictably pathetic and wasteful. I suppose it was a bit of a surprise to see Trump actually looking somewhat cordial and maintaining his presidential poise for as long as he did. And Hillary did manage to smile a little more than usual and wail and nag a smite less. But essentially, as usual, there was more evasiveness than substance and too much of it was the same old garbage that we’ve been bombarded with for so many moons.

Things could have been so much better had third party candidates been allowed into the debates. Then real issues could have been introduced — issues such as our pathetic judicial system, our cruel and insane “war” on certain drugs, racism and police brutality, our saturated prisons, our endless battles around the world, etc. The list goes endlessly on.

Sadly, there will probably never be much real change possible as long as we remain essentially a two party — or actually in many ways a one party — nation.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.